Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
JMIR Hum Factors ; 10: e40105, 2023 Jan 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2224658


BACKGROUND: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, patient portals have become more widely used tools of patient care delivery. However, not all individuals have equivalent access or ability to use patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationships between eHealth literacy (eHL) and patient portal awareness, use, and attitudes among hospitalized patients. METHODS: Inpatients completed patient portal surveys; eHL was assessed (eHealth Literacy Scale). Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, self-reported race, gender, and educational attainment were completed with significance at P<.006 (Bonferroni correction). RESULTS: Among 274 participants, most identified as Black (n=166, 61%) and female (n=140, 51%), mean age was 56.5 (SD 16.7) years, and 178 (65%) reported some college or higher educational attainment. One-quarter (n=79, 28%) had low eHL (mean 27, SD 9.5), which was associated with lower odds of portal access awareness (odds ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.23; P<.001), having ever used portals (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.36; P<.001), less perceived usefulness of portals (odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.38; P=.001), and lower likelihood of planning to use portals in the coming years (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.06-0.25; P<.001). As time through the COVID-19 pandemic passed, there was a trend toward increased perceived usefulness of patient portals (53% vs 62%, P=.08), but average eHL did not increase through time (P=.81). CONCLUSIONS: Low eHL was associated with less awareness, use, and perceived usefulness of portals. Perceived usefulness of portals likely increased through the COVID-19 pandemic, but patients' eHL did not. Interventions tailored for patients with low eHL could ensure greater equity in health care delivery through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sci Rep ; 12(1): 19397, 2022 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119266


Vitamin D deficiency has long been associated with reduced immune function that can lead to viral infection. Several studies have shown that Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increases the risk of infection with COVID-19. However, it is unknown if treatment with Vitamin D can reduce the associated risk of COVID-19 infection, which is the focus of this study. In the population of US veterans, we show that Vitamin D2 and D3 fills were associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection of 28% and 20%, respectively [(D3 Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.80, [95% CI 0.77, 0.83]), D2 HR = 0.72, [95% CI 0.65, 0.79]]. Mortality within 30-days of COVID-19 infection was similarly 33% lower with Vitamin D3 and 25% lower with D2 (D3 HR = 0.67, [95% CI 0.59, 0.75]; D2 HR = 0.75, [95% CI 0.55, 1.04]). We also find that after controlling for vitamin D blood levels, veterans receiving higher dosages of Vitamin D obtained greater benefits from supplementation than veterans receiving lower dosages. Veterans with Vitamin D blood levels between 0 and 19 ng/ml exhibited the largest decrease in COVID-19 infection following supplementation. Black veterans received greater associated COVID-19 risk reductions with supplementation than White veterans. As a safe, widely available, and affordable treatment, Vitamin D may help to reduce the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 , Vitamin D Deficiency , Humans , Pandemics , Dietary Supplements , Vitamin D Deficiency/complications , Vitamin D Deficiency/drug therapy , Vitamin D Deficiency/epidemiology , Cholecalciferol , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins/therapeutic use
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(9): e2019722, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-743602


Importance: Vitamin D treatment has been found to decrease the incidence of viral respiratory tract infection, especially in patients with vitamin D deficiency. Whether vitamin D is associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence is unknown. Objective: To examine whether the last vitamin D status before COVID-19 testing is associated with COVID-19 test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study at an urban academic medical center included patients with a 25-hydroxycholecalciferol or 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol level measured within 1 year before being tested for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 10, 2020. Exposures: Vitamin D deficiency was defined by the last measurement of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol less than 20 ng/mL or 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol less than 18 pg/mL before COVID-19 testing. Treatment changes were defined by changes in vitamin D type and dose between the date of the last vitamin D level measurement and the date of COVID-19 testing. Vitamin D deficiency and treatment changes were combined to categorize the most recent vitamin D status before COVID-19 testing as likely deficient (last level deficient and treatment not increased), likely sufficient (last level not deficient and treatment not decreased), and 2 groups with uncertain deficiency (last level deficient and treatment increased, and last level not deficient and treatment decreased). Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test result. Multivariable analysis tested whether vitamin D status before COVID-19 testing was associated with testing positive for COVID-19, controlling for demographic and comorbidity indicators. Results: A total of 489 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.2 [18.4] years; 366 [75%] women; and 331 [68%] race other than White) had a vitamin D level measured in the year before COVID-19 testing. Vitamin D status before COVID-19 testing was categorized as likely deficient for 124 participants (25%), likely sufficient for 287 (59%), and uncertain for 78 (16%). Overall, 71 participants (15%) tested positive for COVID-19. In multivariate analysis, testing positive for COVID-19 was associated with increasing age up to age 50 years (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = .02); non-White race (relative risk, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.26-5.12; P = .009), and likely deficient vitamin D status (relative risk, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.12-2.81; P = .02) compared with likely sufficient vitamin D status. Predicted COVID-19 rates in the deficient group were 21.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-29.2%) vs 12.2%(95% CI, 8.9%-15.4%) in the sufficient group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, likely deficient vitamin D status was associated with increased COVID-19 risk, a finding that suggests that randomized trials may be needed to determine whether vitamin D affects COVID-19 risk.

Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Vitamin D Deficiency , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Calcifediol/blood , Calcitriol/blood , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vitamin D Deficiency/blood , Vitamin D Deficiency/epidemiology , Vitamin D Deficiency/therapy , Vitamins/therapeutic use